There is a scene in my book, “He Was Weird,” which I call the “Smiley Incident.” To bring those who haven’t read it up to speed, Smiley is a substitute PE teacher at Mark’s school. While Mark is playing basketball with his fellow students, Smiley begins calling Mark, “Coordination Plus.” Then at one point, when Mark has his back to him, Smiley pulls Mark’s shorts down thus humiliating Mark in front of his entire class resulting in him getting teased about it for the rest of the day. When he goes home after school, Mark tells his mother about the pulling down of his pants. His mother and his grandfather immediately contact the police and have Smiley arrested.

As is the case with Mark throughout the story, even though Smiley pleads guilty to indecent assault as part of a deal and is banned from working with children for five years and put on the sex offenders list for two years, it doesn’t end well for him. Fellow classmates who support Smiley take the consequences he faces for his action out on the victim. This leads to Mark being further bullied and even to physical violence because he told his parents and had Smiley sent away.

Like with so many instances of bullying mentioned in the book, this too happened to me. However, it did not happen during the three years of bullying hell which I suffered and inspired me to write “He Was Weird.” In my freshman year in high school, I did encounter a man nicknamed Smiley who volunteered as an assistant wrestling coach, I’m not totally sure of that fact, at my school. He did join in with us playing basketball at one of my PE classes and he did call me ‘Coordination Plus.’ Most importantly though, he did pull my shorts down. However, I did nothing about it. In fact, I never mentioned it until 14 years ago when I was in counselling.

Why didn’t I report it back then? Well the main answer to that is that if I had, nothing would have been done about it. Attitudes were different in 1976 and while this doesn’t excuse it, it does highlight the fact that if I had reported it to the school, Smiley would have gotten a mere slap on the wrist at most and I would have been made out to be the weak ‘pussy’ for telling on him. This was why I was so easily able to write about the reprisals on Mark in the story because I genuinely feared that would have happened to me if I had reported it. I probably would have been beaten up by the wrestling team, so I feared. That’s why I never said anything. Ironically, when working as a substitute teacher a few years back, I did tell a class of children around the same age Mark was in the story about it. They overwhelmingly stated that I should have had Smiley done. Oh, how things have changed.

For those same reasons, I have never told my mother. She passed away in March never knowing that her son had been indecently assaulted in high school. I believe at the time, if I had told her, she and my grandfather would have reacted the same way Mark’s do in the story and even though it was 1976, would have tried to have Smiley prosecuted. They probably would have succeeded in getting him banned from the school. However, my fears were that all of the above things mentioned would have still happened to me. I would have been the bad guy for reporting it, even more so because I got my mother involved and there would have been a backlash. Therefore, I never told anyone. Besides if I had brought it up to my mother years later, it would have only caused her more grief, so I’m glad I never told her.

One final reason why I am only posting about it now after all these years is down to my own Asperger’s fueled anxieties. Former abuse victims have been coming out and telling about their awful experiences and I praise them highly for doing so. That leads to another anxiety; having my shorts pulled down isn’t nearly as bad as some of the sexual abuse others have suffered. Because what I experienced isn’t horrific, I felt I had no right to talk about it. It’s only now that I do and what it has done is make me even more empathetic to those who have suffered worse things than I. Also there’s my anxiety that because people are coming out about their abuse, I will be seen as simply jumping on the bandwagon. While it might sound daft, I do hope that people don’t really think that.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

To buy He Was Weird, go to: https://www.amazon.co.uk/He-Was-Weird-Michael-Lefevre/dp/1909740942/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1543425136&sr=1-1&keywords=he+was+weird

It has been said by some historians and others that World War One was the most senseless waste of human life in the history of this planet. I tend to agree with this notion and not because I’m some sort of hippy peacenik and I want to make it clear that I in no way want to disrespect the men who fought and died in this war. In fact, one of the reasons I am writing this is because those who served in the trenches deserve all the honour and respect going. It’s the wisdom of the governments at the time I am calling into question. In my view, the First World War was always a twentieth century war started by pre-twentieth century diplomacy or the lack of it.

Most people who have any knowledge of history know the trigger which started the four year carnage, a perceived act of terrorism when a young Serbian radical named Gavrilo Princip shot and killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand who was heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary. But how did this lead to a massive war involving nations from every continent? I will examine the main players to try to answer this.

First Austria-Hungary: The emperor of this nation was looking for any excuse to go to war with Serbia to regain the respect for his declining empire. That is why after Austria-Hungary sent Serbia an ultimatum over the murder of the Archduke and the Serbians agreed to every demand except for one, Austria-Hungary declared war on them.

Russia: Traditionally it has always seen itself as the protector of the Slovak people and that was its reason for rushing to the aid of Serbia. However, Russia was vying to be the number one nation in Central Europe and its main competitors were Germany and Austria-Hungary. Getting into a war would give them the opportunity to show it’s strength.

This leads me to Germany: They too were serious about being number one in Central Europe and saw Russia as its main rival. It was said by Kaiser Wilhelm that the two nations could not coexist without something happening. However, Germany didn’t just have its eye on Russia. Great Britain was number one in both colonizing the world and naval power. Germany, being number two, was more than eager to try to take the top spot.

Great Britain: They knew they were number one in the world at this time and wasn’t about to give it up without a fight. Furthermore, because they were number one, they often saw themselves as the world’s policemen. It was also because of their colonial power, they were able to drag countries such as India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand into fight on their side. What did any of these countries have to do with Europe?

France: A different story here, France had been humiliated in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71 and as a result of their defeat, had to give two provinces to Prussia, who would later become part of Germany. The main issue about the land France had to surrender was that they were rich in coal and coal was the lifeblood of industry in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. They were looking for payback.

So, after a month of feeble diplomacy designed to prevent conflict ,the first shots would be fired. When I say it was a 20th century war, I point out the diabolical weapons that were used in that war that inflicted atrocious casualties on mortal men. My most graphic image of World War One is men going over the top from their trench, getting mowed down my machine gun and other fire in their thousands to take a few hundred yards of ground. When I look at it in this context, I immediately see the futility of it all. The men who fought and were mentally and physically scarred for life or died were truly lions led by donkeys and I’m speaking more about the governments who sent them into this madness more than the generals who presided over it although the generals should not escape blame either. Four years later, with more than ten million dead and more than twenty one million wounded, did anything really change for the better?

Now I am going off on a side track here but as an American living in Western Europe I must speak. Since I have lived here, I have from time to time had to put up with those who live in nations who fought for the Allies who have attempted to lay a guilt trip on the United States for their late entry into the war. Notwithstanding some of these are the very same people who would criticise America for sticking its nose in where its not wanted, I must state that the US doesn’t deserve such a guilt trip! After all, it was only trying to adhere to the 1825 Monroe Doctrine which stated that the United States should not meddle in European affairs. In the early years of the war, many Americans, both politicians and people, saw entry into the war as meddling in such affairs. The simple fact is that the United States never should have gotten involved in that war. Nor should have Britain, France, Canada, Italy, Turkey. Australia, New Zealand, Russia or Germany.

Taking the above further, it is historically correct that the US entry into the war tipped the balance in favour of the Allies and secured victory. However, Americans have no right to boast to its then Allies that they saved them in the war. Unfortunately, some of my fellow countryment forget the fact that the other nations mentioned had spent three years in the trenches fully facing all the horrors of this needless bloodbath called World War One before the US finally got into it.

Finally, all of what I have written here is all the reason why we should take the time during the centenary of World War One to honour the men who fought and died in the war, not their governments. It was these men who paid the ultimate price for their governments’ folly and misinformation. This is why I pledge now that whenever I see a monument for WWI, I will read each and every name on the memorial say a quick prayer that God will remember each and every one of them for what they had to endure and that is why I also wear the red poppy. The red poppy doesn’t glorify war, it remembers the futility of it.

My main motivation for starting Peaceful Rampage was to use it to notify people of my book, “He Was Weird,” which has been out for more than five years now. I have attracted a good number of followers, but while many have followed me because they share an interest in one area, I tend to blog about many topics which individuals may not be interested. The thing is that nearly everything I post about does in some way connect to the book. Therefore, I thought I would spend this page relating how.

Asperger’s Syndrome and Autism: This seems to be the field where I have attracted the most followers. Unlike Mark, the main character in the book, I have never been diagnosed with the condition although I am convinced that I have it. Therefore, it is great to find that there are many people who are like me. I feel part of a community and I enjoy reading posts from fellow Aspies and hope they enjoy reading mine. On the other hand, I don’t feel the need to write every post about it.

Bullying: I was a victim of horrendous bullying for three years and that was the inspiration to write “He Was Weird.” I wrote the book and this blog to reach out to other victims in the hopes that together, we can stamp out bullying and silence the ghosts of our own pasts.

School Shootings: That is how Mark finally deals with his bullying in the story. See, my bullying was so bad that whenever I read about a school shooting, my first response is, “This could have been me.” I sometimes wonder if I have a morbid fascination with mass shootings and that worries me. What I am glad is that I never had any access to guns back then.

Religion: Religion was a part of my childhood and I became a Born Again Christian at 11. As it was during the three years of bullying hell, I put it in the story and even use scripture to give Mark the courage to carry out his shooting. Nowadays, while I still believe the basics of Christianity and found that the Mormon faith was the best for me, I don’t wish to follow any organized religion. Because of my Asperger’s, I think that religion messed my head up more than everything else, most likely because I believed everything so literally. Still, I respect anyone who has religious or spiritual beliefs and can live by those beliefs.

Politics: There is not much of this in the story except at the end when the peace group Mark’s mother belongs to is infiltrated by Homeland Security. However, I have been politically aware and have been on both right and left of the political spectrum.

Music: My first book, “Rock and Roll Children” is about music so it’s always been a part of me as well. In “He Was Weird,” people try to blame Mark’s shooting on music and of course Marilyn Manson.

History: I love history and so does Mark. He becomes quite good at historical strategy games like Age of Empires. While history doesn’t feature heavily in the book, it’s still there and it will always be a favourite topic of mine.

US-UK Relations: No I’m not talking about the ‘special relationship’ between the two countries. I am talking about the things I have observed about both countries during the second half of my life which I lived in the UK. That’s why after news of Mark’s shooting breaks, I do a BBC News report in the story. However, one thing I got wrong there is that the shooting didn’t lead the news and in reality, it would have.

Sports: I love sports, American football and ice hockey are my favourites. They are Mark’s too and like him, I had fantasies about being a great hockey player. It fits in well with the story.

There are probably smaller topics too but these are the main ones. I know not all of these will interest everyone but I hope that there is at least one that we hold your interest and make you read. However, it’s just not in my mindset to post about the same topic all the time. I just post what is in my weird mind at the time or I need to get off my chest. Keep reading as I am grateful for all who do.

To buy He Was Weird, go to: https://www.amazon.co.uk/He-Was-Weird-Michael-Lefevre/dp/1909740942/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1541717422&sr=1-1&keywords=he+was+weird

You know, maybe I should do this as a regular blog. Being an American who has now lived more than half his life in Great Britain, I have a lot of thoughts and insights in regards to both countries. While it may seem that I have a lot of food for thought and I do, however, I don’t think it would be enough to fill a regular weekly blog. Still, I will share my thoughts when the situation warrants me doing so.

First, in regards to last week’s post on this subject, I have to give Lorraine Kelly credit where it’s due. Normally, she rubbishes American actors who play British roles. After all, she thinks Hollywood actors are all pampered spoiled brats, Actually, she has a point here. On this occasion though, she has sung the praises of how well American, yes American, actor Rami Malek has portrayed the role of legendary Queen singer Freddie Mercury in the new film, “Bohemian Rhapsody.” For those living on Jupiter, Freddie Mercury was English. To read how much Lorraine is impressed with Rami in the role was uplifting. So Lorraine, even though I still think you’re a blatant American hater, I applaud you for your words about Rami Malek.

Rami Malek as Freddie Mercury

Since my last post, I have had more thoughts as a Yank in the UK. First is the merging of opposites relating to police forces in both countries. Much has been made in the US and UK about American police officers indiscriminately shooting African American men. While the occurrences are often exaggerated in the media, the fact that this is a seemingly regular phenomenon and the fact that it happens doesn’t fill me with patriotic zeal for my country of birth. On the other hand, Britain has had to deal with gangs of Asian men grooming and sexually abusing young girls, most of whom are white. The police were very slow to address the issue hiding behind the excuse that if they had intervened, they would have been called ‘racist.’ To me, that is just a lame answer in an attempt to cover up lazy police work. Both countries police forces come together when it comes to what has been commonly referred to as ‘black on black’ crime. African American gangs have been a problem in America since the 1950s and recently there have been many cases of black men stabbing each other in the streets of many of Britain’s major cities. Both nation’s police forces seem to be of the mind that if blacks are killing each other, it’s no major matter. I think it is.

Did anyone watch the Philadelphia Eagles vs Jacksonville Jaguars game this past Sunday? Wembley Stadium in London was full to capacity. Not bad for a country who thinks American football isn’t popular.

Philadelphia Eagles

As I sign off for this week, I will leave you with one final amusing thought. Throughout my life living in two separate countries, I have met many Americans who I would like take to a pub full of (insert English Premiership football club here) supporters. Likewise, I have met many Brits who I would like to take to a redneck bar in rural USA. It would be very interesting to see what transpires in both settings.

To buy He Was Weird, go to: https://www.amazon.co.uk/He-Was-Weird-Michael-Lefevre/dp/1909740942/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540930459&sr=1-1&keywords=he+was+weird

One thing many people living in my adopted country of Great Britain can’t understand about my country of birth, the USA, is the American obsession with college sports. Thoughts about this came to mind while I was in the US last month. As it was March, the focus of sports in the US centered around the college basketball playoffs, which is properly nicknamed, “March Madness.” Just about every game was shown on TV and lots of talk generated around it. This was further aided by the fact that a local university, Villanova, located just outside Philadelphia, whose basketball team was not only playing in the March Madness, but was also the number one seed. However, this is not only true with the playoffs and basketball but other college sports as well. None more so with (American) football.

The United States and the United Kingdom have a different attitude towards sports in their university. This is blatantly obvious as American colleges pour loads more money into sports than British ones. Furthermore, except for the famous Oxford-Cambridge boat race, I’ve never seen any university sports televised in Britain. Still, it begs the question, why are Americans so obsessed with college sports? To try to answer this, I will look at the two biggest college sports, football and basketball.

College football

For many in Britain, experience with American football begins and ends with the NFL. In fact, I admit that I had lost touch with college football until I began officiating the sport in the UK. That is because football leagues in Britain play by college (NCAA) rules. That might answer the question there because while NFL rules are centered around entertainment, the basic philosophy of college football is “Let players play.” One example of NFL rules being centered around entertainment is back in the late 1970s. The NFL felt that there weren’t enough punt returns happening in the games. Kicking teams were getting downfield too fast and preventing the receiving team from returning the punt. So what the NFL did was make a rule that only two players on the kicking team were allowed downfield before the ball was kicked. Now, we see more punt returns in the NFL. College rules don’t do that. In fact, I have told people in the UK who are interested in American football that if they want to see the game played well in its purest form, to watch college football.

It’s not just the lack of complexity of the rules in college football that lure many Americans. The college game is more wide open. You see many more running plays that go ten yards or more and also see more razzle-dazzle plays, thus bringing an air of excitement to the game. On account of this, many Americans do prefer the college game to the professional. However, there is a down side. Until recently, championships were decided by rankings in the sports press. In order to climb the rankings, you had to win games and win them convincingly. In the NFL, if a team is winning 42-0 in the fourth quarter, they will call off the dogs a bit. The losing team may even get a touchdown or two so the score doesn’t look that bad. In college football, there is no let up if a team is up by that score. If anything, the winning team will try to run up the score even more because beating a weaker team 56-0 will send a team up the rankings a lot more than beating them 42-7. Other than that, there is a lot of excitement to be seen in college football.

Villanova winning the college basketball championship.

Many school children in the UK know of the NBA, largely thanks to the film, “Space Jam.” When working as a substitute (supply) teacher, I sometimes get asked who my favourite NBA team is and I happily tell them the Boston Celtics. However, I also tell them that I prefer watching college basketball and why. Yes, in the NBA, you get all the slick moves of Kobe Bryant and LeBron James and that can be exciting. The problem is that the NBA is too good. The teams go up and down court making baskets and after a little while, that can get a little boring. And that’s the cool thing about college basketball. They miss once in a while and that brings a little more uncertainty about scoring. For me, that makes the game more exciting. I know I’m not the only American who holds this view.

Finally, whilst on the subject, many people in the UK think it’s awful that in America, a person can get into a university for playing sports. Let me clarify this. Most of the kids who get offered athletic scholarships from universities are from underprivileged backgrounds. They are probably better than average students but with the demand for university placements and the costs of going to college, these kids would never get the chance to go. Therefore, their athletic abilities get them into a good college where they can have a good education, get a degree and get out of poverty. Isn’t that better than seeing a person has that ability not be able to use it?

To buy He Was Weird, go to https://www.amazon.co.uk/He-Was-Weird-Michael-Lefevre/dp/1909740942/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1523998425&sr=1-1&keywords=he+was+weird

In the past, I called posts like the one I am about to make, “A Victory for the Bullies,” however, I get the impression that some of you are tired of seeing that title. Therefore, I’m using stealth tactics and giving the post another title. This does not stop what you are about to read being yet another victory for the bullies.

Following the death of her friend, who took her own life on account of the bullying she was receiving, Emily Gipson of Lebanon Tennessee, posted a free verse poem about the bullying and suicide going on at her school. She was given permission by a teacher to use his classroom as a backdrop for a school project. The video she made for her poem chalked up 600,000 views on Youtube.

If you have been following my posts for awhile, you probably already have guessed that the school reacted to the video in a way that was not favourable to Emily. That’s right, she was suspended from school for two days. The school’s reason behind the suspension: She was in the school after hours and after all students were told they had to be out of the building. While the school denies the suspension was anything due to the content of the video, the teacher was mortified by the content, and even denied claims that the suspension was down to the video inciting violence, I still can’t help wonder that the denial was a smokescreen. Once again, we see a school using some bullshit violation of a school rule to punish someone who wants to do something about the bullying at their school.

Please watch the video and judge for yourself:

To address any possible backlash, I am in no way saying that being a bullying victim or speaking out against bullying is an excuse to break the rules. True, Miss Gipson might have been in the school building when she shouldn’t have been, but she was given permission by a teacher to be there. Plus, as a teacher myself, if I had given a pupil permission to use my classroom for a project, I would have at least checked on the pupil at least once, for safety reasons if anything else. This way, if Emily was saying anything shocking or inflammatory, he could have stopped it. So, this teacher isn’t totally guiltless here.

As for the school, I believe that the suspension of Emily was a reaction to the fact that she had highlighted bullying at the school. No school likes to admit that such a thing goes on in their institution. They have even stated that they never had any complaints of bullying from Emily or her friend who committed suicide. However, other students have claimed that it did go on. Besides, how many cases of unreported bullying are there in schools across America? I suspect millions. Many victims are too scared to report bullying and that’s probably why the school never heard about it. But instead of trying to address the issue of bullying, they decided to suspended this brave girl who had the stones to speak out against the terrible plague that is bullying.

Reflecting back to events of the past couple of weeks and over the entire time I have been writing, I believe that its time to venture forth and ask, “Are the schools at fault when it comes to bullying?” Looking at the recent event in Virginia where a mother was arrested and nearly charged with a felony for putting a recording device in her daughter’s bag to find out if she was getting bullied, I would say yes in this case. The mother did try going through the correct procedure of informing the school that her daughter was being bullied but had no response. Therefore, she did what she did out of exasperation. It might not have been the right thing to do as there are lots of privacy issues here but the school failed the mother, plain and simple.

I have no doubt that if the school intervened, there would have been no need for the mother to put a recording device into her daughter’s bag. But why are schools seem to be slow or inactive in dealing with bullying? As a teacher myself, I know how overworked schools and teachers are. In many cases, they aren’t simply ignoring a bullying instance, however, they are so stressed out over their workload that it gets pushed to the back-burner. BTW, I am not using this to excuse schools for not dealing with the bullying, far from it. Bullying cases should be fast-tracked to the top of the school’s attention so it can be dealt with before too much suffering happens.

Other reasons for schools not seeming to handle bullying is the simple fact that they don’t know it’s going on. Many victims are afraid to report bullying for many reasons like looking weak, worried the school won’t take them seriously or reprisals by the bullies outside of school. Of course, some school officials and teachers bury their head in the sand because they don’t want to have to deal with it, so they pretend to know nothing about it. Then they play dumb if pulled up on it. This is wrong and what should happen more is that victims should be totally encouraged to report the bullying they suffer.

What really grinds my gears, (sorry, I’m a Family Guy fan), is how some schools over react when victims or their parents decide enough is enough and take matters into their own hands. The latest incident in Virginia is a prime example and for another good one, read my ancient post, “A Victory for the Bullies.” I theorize that schools react this way because they have been seen as not dealing with the bullying, so, because they lack evidence against the bullies, use the letter of the law to punish the victims because that victim has just embarrassed the school by highlighting the school’s inability to efficiently tackle bullying. This is lame in my view and in my opinion brings more shame upon the school.

Family Guy

Ideas leading to more ideas about future posts has given me inspiration here. Using the novels I popularly use, “Nineteen Minutes” by Jodi Picoult, “Endgame” by the late Nancy Garden, “Rupture” by Simon Lelic and my own novel, “He Was Weird,” all novels where bullying results in a school shooting, I will look at each story and see how well the school handled the bullying in it. I tell you now, that I’m not holding out much hope for the schools here but it should make interesting reading.

To buy He Was Weird, go to: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Was-Weird-Lefevre-Michael-Paperback/dp/B00YRC6826/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1512406367&sr=1-3&keywords=he+was+weird

Last week, I posted about how a mother in Virginia was facing criminal charges because she put a recording device into her daughter’s back pack to see whether or not she was getting bullied. Yesterday, the charges against this mother have been dropped. FFI click on the link:

For the past three weeks, all sorts of worry has followed since I wrote my post about the misuse of history. My biggest worry is that I came across as being a racist, which I’m not. I think my big mistake was going into too much detail and letting the facts run away with me. Maybe my opinions were too intense for some, I don’t know. What I do know is that throughout history, history has been misused by persons in order to fulfill some sort of agenda. By the left as a stick to beat people with and by the right to foster hatred and sometimes false senses of national pride.

Robert E Lee, this statue should not be torn down

One controversial point I made in that post was that I thought that statues of Robert E Lee should not be torn down. I know that he fought for the Confederacy whose cause was the maintaining of slavery in the South. It could be argued that it was because of his brilliant generalship, that the US Civil War lasted four years. He embarrassed several Union generals in the early years of the war and even his defeat at Gettysburg led to Lincoln sacking the general who won the battle. It took General Grant who realized that while the Union may lose 25,000 men and the Confederacy only 20,000, the Union could afford to lose that number while the Confederacy couldn’t. Basically, Grant wore Lee down in a war of attrition. My point here is that Lee was a great general who just happened to fight on the side which was pro-slavery. He, like so many Americans, fought for the side his home state did. Tearing down his statues does not alter that fact nor should his statue be seen as some symbol to slavery because I never saw it that way.

Abraham Lincoln Battalion

A slightly more recent historical confusion came in the form of the Spanish Civil War. For those who don’t know, the Spanish Civil War was between forces loyal to the elected government, which was left of centre and included socialists and communists and the Nationalist forces led by General Franco. History has shown Franco to be a fascist dictator, supported by Italy led by Mussolini and Nazi Germany. When the war started, thousands of men and women from many other countries came to Spain to fight on the side of the Loyalists against Franco. Roughly three-thousand of these were from the United States who formed the Abraham Lincoln Battalion. The battalion fought bravely in many engagements and many were killed during the three years they fought in Spain. One historical point: The Abraham Lincoln Battalion was the first American military unit to have full racial integration.

A few years back, I commented elsewhere that I never agreed with former US President Ronald Reagan’s comment that the Abraham Lincoln Battalion fought on the wrong side. Many people agreed with my comment but one person asked me if I would have liked Spain to have become like the USSR if the Loyalists had won. I asked him to provide evidence to this and while his response was “You’re kidding right?,” he never provided such evidence.

To me, this is another misuse of history. I have read a historical ‘What if’ that said Spain would have become a Soviet satellite state because the Loyalists had backing from Stalin and during the civil war, Spanish Communists carried out Stalinist style purges on their own side. Maybe so, we can only speculate here but my question is: “What made those Americans and others from around the world go to Spain and fight on the side of the Loyalists if they were determined to set up a Soviet state?” One argument would be that they were fighting against fascism and that was a noble cause. With the rise of Hitler and Mussolini, there was a genuine fear in the 1930s of fascism spreading, even more so that Communism. Maybe they were simply fighting on the side that they thought was right and it is only armchair historians who have put in their own conclusions on the matter based on some historical knowledge. Thinking about it can drive me to insanity. Still, I don’t think that the Abraham Lincoln Battalion fought on the wrong side. Additionally, wrong or right, these Americans sacrificed a lot to go to another country and fight for a cause and isn’t that what America is supposed to be all about?

I have always loved history. In “He Was Weird,” Mark also loves history although when he imparts certain historical knowledge, he gets bullied for “showing off.” A second ago, I was going to write that my last statement was a digression from the intent of the post but it is linked. Throughout the ages, history has been misused. Often times it’s misused by the right to foster hate or promote patriotism and misused by the left as a stick to beat people with. Either way, history gets misused.

The right’s misuse of history is very straight forward. They want to use it to celebrate historical events that make their country look great. At the same time, they want events that don’t make their country look so good de-emphasized or not taught at all. Look at the holocaust deniers, which is why the best thing Dwight Eisenhower did in World War 2 was to order photos taken of the concentration camps. Because like he said, “In fifty years time, some bastard will say that this never happened.” He was right.

Back in the 1980s and I’m sure it still goes on, the American right wanted the Vietnam War de-emphasized where pupils were taught, that America didn’t really lose or that the protesters lost the war for America and we would have won if it wasn’t for that. Gee, when I was in the marines, some of my fellow marines said the army lost Vietnam for us. The right’s obsession with covering up Vietnam even got the point where Jello Biafra has a three minute tirade called, “Vietnam Never Happened.” It’s quite funny. Has it worked? Well, it did back in the 80s. I remember a teenager stating that America won Vietnam. Also, the greatest but little known success of the Reagan presidency was the vilification of the 1960s.

Other nations are the same. In my adopted home, the UK, British children are not taught about the American War of Independence and if mentioned, those on the right are quick to point out that Britain won most of the battles, they did. Then again, they aren’t taught about the French and Indian War which Britain did win. The only mention I’ve ever heard or seen was a history documentary about the decisive victory at the Battle of Quebec. I know that the right wing in other countries are the same way with the teaching of history.

Now to the left, which my Asperger’s mind has real problems with. The left go totally the opposite way with the teaching of history, to the point where they want to portray their country as evil. The British Empire is a prime example of this. See, in principle, I agree that the Britain and some of the other European nations proclaiming parts of Africa and Asia as part of their empires was wrong. I know that a lot of atrocities were committed in the name of the Empire and I think that was terrible too. However, my question is, how long should the people today pay for the sins of their forefathers? The left uses this history as justification for letting all the world come settle in their country. While they may have a point, it’s not practical. The empires were more than 100 years ago and those nations now have independence. Yet the left wants to use events of over a century ago as a stick to beat the people of today with and this leads to my point. History is a learning tool used to point out where people went wrong or got it right and used to guide the future generations so they won’t make the same mistakes as their fathers did. I’m talking right and left here.

Before anyone on the left who is reading this starts calling me racist, I’m not. However, history is used by both left and right as a tool for racism. American history is full of examples, especially in regards to African Americans. Slavery was wrong, totally wrong. The right use it to point out to African Americans that they should be lucky they weren’t living back then if they think that they have it so bad now. What a load of hogwash! Furthermore, white people living in the North, have no right to use it as an excuse to lord it over the South and especially towards African Americans whom Northern whites on the right believe should feel grateful to them for freeing them from the bonds of slavery. I wonder is this the reason why I have met a good number of African Americans from the South who have “Southern pride.” And to Northern right wingers, it’s not Stockholm Syndrome. On the other hand, slavery should not be used as an excuse by African Americans to hate whites. This is also punishing the children for the sins of their fathers and why should I be hated for something that ended a century before I was born? And thanks to my step mother’s efforts in tracing my geneology, I can say with a good deal of certainty that none of my ancestors were involved in slavery while it was going on. Slavery in America is a perfect example of how the right uses history as a tool to oppress and how the left uses it as a stick to beat people with. In either case, the end result is hate.

Robert E Lee, this statue should not be torn down

I’d like to raise a point about the American Civil War here. This is directed to the Southerners I’ve met in my lifetime who haven’t dealt with the fact that the South lost. First, if the South had won, the United States would be two separate nations and not as strong as it is now. A Southern victory would have made the Monroe Doctrine unenforceable and the nations of Europe would have expanded their empires to South America. That is why during the war, France went in and took over Mexico. Furthermore, Germany might have won World War 1 and God knows what would have happened with World War 2. So, maybe it was good for the US and the world that the Union won the Civil War. I am not trying to lord the North’s victory over the South, in fact, I am dead against the tearing down of Robert E Lee’s statues. He was a great general and should be honoured as such. After all, Rommel fought on the side that promoted genocide but I’ve heard no claims against him. I’m just using history in hindsight to show the good things that came out of that war.

I guess what I am doing is trying to make sense of the use of history in my own mind. The teaching of it has often times been misused to further some political agenda, both by the left and right. It should be taught that while most historical events have been for the best, there are some which haven’t. The only tool history should be used for is a learning one so we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past and build on the successes of that past in the hope of building a better future.

To buy He Was Weird, go to: https://www.amazon.co.uk/He-Was-Weird-Michael-Lefevre/dp/1909740942/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1505813006&sr=1-1&keywords=he+was+weird